“What To Expect From OSHA In 2016 And Beyond”




Though a number of OSHA’s enforcement initiatives may not technically be considered new for 2016, we can expect that OSHA will continue to increasingly issue citations under the General Duty Clause and the multi-employer worksite doctrine. We can also expect OSHA to continue to focus its attention on the training and protection provided to temporary employees, especially under OSHA’s Powered Industrial Truck (forklift) standard, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standards and Lockout Tagout (LOTO) regulations. OSHA has also been stepping up its workplace heat illness initiative, sending expansive subpoena requests to dozens of employers engaged in industries where employees typically are potentially exposed to heat,including manufacturing and construction, even if no injuries or illnesses have been reported. As such, it is important that employers remain aware of these issues to try to limit liability in 2016.


The new bipartisan budget, passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by President Obama on November 2, 2015, contains provisions that will raise OSHA penalties for the first time in 25 years. The budget allows for an initial penalty “catch up adjustment,” which must be in place by August 1, 2016.

The maximum initial “catch up adjustment” will be based on the difference between the October 2015 Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the October 1990 CPI. The October 2015 CPI was released on November 17, 2015, and came in at 237.838. Based on the October 1990 CPI of 133.500, the maximum catch up adjustment will be approximately 78.16% and the new maximum penalties could be:


August 2016

Other than Serious violations:


Serious violations:


Willful violations:


Repeat violations:


After the initial catch up adjustment, OSHA will be required to implement annual cost of living increases, with the adjustment tied to the year over year percentage increase in the CPI. Adjustments must be made by mid-January each subsequent year.

OSHA has the option to implement a catch up adjustment less than the maximum if the Agency determines increasing penalties by the maximum amount would (1) have a “negative economic impact” or the social costs of the increase outweigh the benefits and (2) the Office of Management and Budget agrees. However, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels has long advocated for a substantial increase in penalties so it is difficult to envision the Agency seeking anything other than the maximum increase.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause, designated as section 5(a)(1), employers are required to protect employees from recognized workplace hazards that are correctible and likely to cause serious harm or death. Where OSHA lacks a specific standard to address a workplace hazard, the Agency has increasingly used the general duty clause as a “gap filler” for enforcement. OSHA thus has used the General Duty Clause to cite employers for a wide range of alleged hazards, and to enforce policies the Agency issued through guidance documents rather than formal regulations, including: ergonomics, illness due to exposure to heat and cold, arc flash/arc blast, combustible dust, chemicals and other hazardous materials for which there is no existing regulation, and fall protection.
In 2016, we expect that the Agency will use the General Duty Clause to cite employers for repetitive tasks causing ergonomic issues and musculoskeletal disorders. Moreover, in light of the increasing publicity given to the hazard because of tragic incidents involving workplace shootings, OSHA will continue its emphasis on citing employers for workplace violence incidents and violations, particularly in certain industries such as healthcare, certain retail facilities and public transportation such as taxi cabs. Employers should maintain policies and training on these issues to prevent liability and business disruptions from OSHA’s increased use of the General Duty Clause in 2016.


In a move that could drastically affect day to day operations at a large number of employers, OSHA has signaled in a new permissible exposure limit (PEL) request for information from industry and other stakeholders that it plans to “revoke a small number of obsolete PELs.” Though the rulemaking did not list the PELs OSHA is considering revoking, the revocation of any PELs opens the door for greater use of the General Duty Clause to regulate employee exposure through standards that are not generally industry standards such as NIOSH standards or ACGIH recommended exposure limits. Several commentators believe the PEL walk back is simply OSHA’s attempt to increase employer liability for more citations while avoiding formal rulemaking to establish PELs. Combined with higher fines to be implemented by August, 2016, this could be seen as a new revenue stream for OSHA.


The presence of multiple employers, contractors, consultants, and temporary workers at the same workplace is increasingly common in construction, manufacturing and other industries. OSHA has taken note and made the prosecution of multiple employers at the same workplace a major Agency priority. Under OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite policy, more than one employer may be citable for a hazardous condition that violates an OSHA standard, so long as OSHA determines that they violated a duty under the Act. This can occur even when the employer being cited had no employees exposed to the hazard in issue. The Agency will use a two-step process to determine whether more than one employer is to be cited.

The first step is to determine whether the employer is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. A creating employer, who caused a hazardous condition, is citable even if the only employees exposed are those of other employers at the cite. The exposing employer, whose own employees are exposed to the hazardous condition, is citable if (1) it knew of the hazardous condition or failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the condition, (2) it failed to take steps consistent with its authority to protect its employees. The correcting employer, who is responsible for correcting the hazardous condition, is citable if it fails to meet its obligations of correcting the condition. The controlling employer, who has supervisory authority over the worksite and the power to correct safety and health violations or require others to correct them, is citable if it fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent and detect violations on the site. In General Industry the host employer is typically the controlling employer, while in the Construction Industry it is the General Contractor, and, therefore, carry a higher compliance burden than other employers.

If OSHA determines an employer falls into one (or more) of these four categories, OSHA will then determine whether the employer met its obligations with regard to preventing and correcting the violations. It is important to note that the Multi-Employer Worksite Policy can also be utilized for criminal prosecution of employers if the underlying elements are present which require (1) a fatality, (2) violation of a specific regulation, (3) the violation was willful and (4) there is a causal connection between the violation and the death. As OSHA continues its aggressive application of the Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine, employers should be wary as to potential liabilities for contractors, temporary workers, and other non-employees at their worksites.


OSHA adopted new HCS 2012 SDS standards on December 1, 2013. Chemical end users must come into compliance with the new SDSs passed down from up-stream suppliers and manufacturers by June 1, 2016. Employers should not simply swap in a new SDS for an old MSDS and throw away the old MSDS. Previous MSDSs should be kept on file for several reasons:

to provide proof that an employer was compliant with old HazCom standard.
the prior MSDSs can be useful evidence in defending against worker’s compensation claims by employees for occupational diseases alleged to have arisen from exposure to hazardous materials during the course of employment and
the prior MSDS can be useful evidence in defending third party toxic tort claims alleged to have been caused by exposure to hazardous materials that the employer may have incorporated into products manufactured and sold by the employer or by products that are resold or distributed by the employer.
The new SDSs also presents an opportunity for employers to update their training, hazard communication, and safety procedures for chemicals. The new SDS includes sixteen separate sections, some of which are similar or identical to the existing MSDS sections. There are, however, a number of significant changes and compliance challenges.

When OSHA begins enforcement against employers on June 1, 2016, it will focus on whether the employer has reviewed the SDSs to identify any new risks as well as whether it has evaluated its existing compliance programs in light of the sixteen requirements in the new SDSs.

The Hazard Communication Standard affects nearly every employer, from chemical manufacturers to retailers to hotels whose employees work with cleaning agents. Employers need to be aware of their obligations to communicate hazards of chemical substance, and must have a process for updating existing labels, SDS, hazard assessments, and training programs to comply with HCS 2012. Here are some best practices for employers to follow:

Employers should review the new SDSs in a timely fashion upon receipt.
If the employer does not receive the SDSs in a timely fashion, it should promptly communicate in writing with the manufacturer to obtain the SDSs. If the employer does not receive the SDSs by June 1, 2016, OSHA has indicated that it will not cite employers who show “good faith efforts” to obtain the SDSs.
Employers should evaluate the workplace using the SDSs to identify hazardous chemicals and how their employees may be exposed.
Employers whose employees work with or around hazardous chemicals must ensure that they review the updated SDSs and assess each of the employer’s underlying compliance programs (e.g., emergency action plan, storage of flammable and combustible materials, PPE, respiratory protection, etc.) that may be impacted by the SDSs.
Employers should ensure that employees who work with or around hazardous chemicals are trained to recognize the pictograms and hazard warnings that will be required under the new Hazard Communication Standard. Employers should document this training and develop mechanisms to ensure that employees understand the hazards of working with or around hazardous chemicals.

In 2014, OSHA implemented an initiative to protect temporary employees under the premise that those workers are not provided the same level of training and protections as full-time employees. Under this initiative, OSHA inspectors are required to inquire during inspections whether the inspected worksite has temporary employees and determine whether those employees are exposed to hazardous conditions. Moreover, during the inspection, OSHA will also inquire as to whether the training provided to the temporary workers is in a language and vocabulary the workers can understand. If OSHA determines that the host employer failed to provide adequate training or protections to the temporary employees, OSHA could issue citations not only to the temporary staffing agency, but also the host employer under the multi-employer worksite doctrine. In order to enforce this initiative, OSHA has hired compliance officers who are bilingual (or certified interpreters) to conduct employee interviews of employees to determine if the employees understood the training. If the training were in English and the employee is not fluent in English, then the training is not “effective” and the employer can be cited. Likewise, if the training material is in writing and the employee is illiterate, the training may not be considered “effective.”


One anticipated rule would require employers to submit their injury and illness records “regularly,” electronically instead of only when OSHA requests them through a formal request. With such disclosure, the OSHA 300 Log and supporting documents could be used to trigger OSHA inspections. In addition, the records would be made available to the public so anyone could see an employer’s injury and illness rates. This opens employers to risk of adverse public reaction if such information becomes available in the media, without understanding the context of the records and the complexity of the recordkeeping requirements so the public may erroneously construe the injury and illness rate as creating an unsafe workplace. This disclosure could also result in additional worker’s compensation litigation by attorneys who could utilize this information to file claims.

Even more concerning for employers is another anticipated rule that would make the recordkeeping requirements an “ongoing obligation.” OSHA is expected to interpret this change to allow OSHA to cite recordkeeping violations up to five years old, well past the OSH Act’s six month statute of limitations. This is in direct contradiction to well established case law, including a 2012 D.C. Circuit decision affirming the six month limit.1 There is hope, however, through a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals2 case that prevents OSHA from reinterpreting a rule in such a way that is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” This will be an area to which employers should pay close attention.


Crystalline silica particles are commonly dispersed in the air when workers cut, grind, crush, or drill silica-containing materials such as concrete, masonry, tile, and rock. OSHA estimates that 2.2 million American workers are regularly exposed to respirable silica, with 1.85 million of those workers in the construction industry. Other common sources of exposure are building products manufacturing, sandblasting and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of oil and gas wells. Crystalline silica exposure can cause lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and silicosis, an incurable and sometimes fatal lung disease.

OSHA has outlined a new Silica Rule as a top priority since the beginning of the Obama administration. The Agency sent a draft rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in February 2011, and has pledged to release a final rule by January 2017. (See the notice of proposed rulemaking at https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-20997).

OSHA’s Silica Rule that will establish permissible silica exposure limits for all workers at 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, cutting allowable exposures in half in general industry and maritime businesses, and even more in construction. The proposed rule also includes preferred methods for controlling exposure — such as using water saws to reduce airborne silica dust. The rule will also require that employers conduct periodic air monitoring, limit workers’ access to areas where exposures are high, enforce effective methods for reducing exposures, provide medical exams for workers who have been exposed to elevated levels of silica, and require training for workers about silica-related hazards.


OSHA has had the ability to seek criminal liability against employers and managers since the advent of the law if a willful violation of a regulation causes the death of an employee, although a conviction is a misdemeanor with a six month period of imprisonment and a $500,000 penalty for the employer and $250,000 for an individual.

This seemingly minimal criminal liability has now given rise to a recent criminal enforcement agenda announced by the Department of Justice on December 17, 2015, to seek additional liability against employers when there is a workplace safety violation having nothing to do with a fatality. The DOJ will seek criminal penalties under other criminal laws for lying during an OSHA inspection, making false statements in government documents, obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses which are felonies and can result in imprisonment ranging from 5 to 20 years and enhanced monetary penalties.

With the advent of this criminal prosecution initiative, employers must be extremely careful during OSHA inspections, particularly in the aftermath of a fatality or serious injury, not to engage in any conduct that remotely approaches lying during an inspection, obstruction of justice, tampering with witnesses and must engage knowledgeable counsel at the outset to be able to understand and avoid these liabilities.


On January 1, 2015, OSHA’s more robust reporting rules took effect, requiring employers to report all work-related in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye within 24 hours of the event:

Within eight (8) hours after the death of any employee as a result of a work-related incident (which includes heart attacks);” and
Within twenty-four (24) hours after the in-patient hospitalization of one or more employees or the occurrence of an injury to an employee involving an amputation or loss of an eye, as a result of a work-related incident.”
To streamline these reports, OSHA adopted new procedures: the Interim Enforcement Procedures for New Reporting Requirements. Under these Interim Enforcement Procedures, OSHA triages new reports to determine whether the report warrants an inspection or a “Rapid Response Investigation” (RRI). “Category 1” reports — including fatalities, multiple hospitalizations, repeat offenders, and imminent dangers — will automatically trigger an on-site inspection. “Category 2” reports may trigger an on-site inspection if they involved two of the following factors: continued exposures, safety program failure, serious hazards, temporary workers, referrals from other agencies, and pending whistleblower complaints. If Category 2 factors are not present, the Agency may initiate a Rapid Response Investigation in lieu of an inspection.

OSHA may initiate a Rapid Response Investigation where the Area Director believes that there is a “reasonable basis that a violation or hazard exists.” The Agency will direct employers to “find out what led to the incident and what modifications can you make now to prevent future injuries to other workers.” The Agency will fax a letter instructing employers to “immediately conduct your own investigation into the reported incident and make any necessary changes to avoid further incidents,” and complete a “Non-Mandatory Incident Investigation” form (attached to the letter). The employer’s report and investigation will be used by the Agency to determine whether to conduct its own inspection. A word of caution, these rapid response forms could be used against employers as admissions of liability for a violation of a regulation as well as grounds for OSHA to find a “willful” violation if the employer responds in a way that it appears to admit prior knowledge of the hazard which could be an “admission” of liability. Accordingly, as rapid response forms are increasingly used in 2016, employers should write only limited, careful responses and avoid any language that might support an admission. Employers must preserve attorney client privilege in the conduct of their underlying root cause analysis investigation and disclosures on the forms, and seek the advice of counsel where necessary.


According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, one in every five American workers is over 65, and in 2020, one in four American workers will be over 55. Though the overall effects of an aging workplace are not entirely clear, there are several precautions employers should take to protect aging employees:

Workstations and job tasks must be matched to the needs of the individual employee.
Older workers tend to have fewer accidents but when they do have accidents, the injuries tend to be more severe resulting in a longer recovery time.
Older workers tend to experience more back injuries.
Older workers are more likely to develop musculoskeletal injuries because they have been performing repetitive motions for a longer period of time.
Muscular strength and range of joint movement may decrease.
Vision and hearing challenges may be more prevalent in older workers.
OSHA has begun to analyze the potential hazards associated with these employees and will likely propose guidance.


As with any outgoing administration, there is always the potential for “midnight regulations,” often implemented through rulemaking in the waning days of an Administration, particularly after an election. Though President Obama will not leave office until January 20, 2017, employers should prepare for last minute regulations or potential “executive orders” that may have lasting effects on employers. For example, under the Clinton administration, OSHA issued an ergonomics rule shortly after the 2000 election and Congress was forced to repeal the rule shortly after President Bush took office in January 2001. The likelihood of midnight regulation under President Obama depends heavily on which party wins the presidency in November 2016. To avoid potential political fallout for a new administration, OSHA will likely implement any new regulations as early as possible in 2016.

Midnight regulations are not the only potential consequence of an outgoing administration. New last minute interpretations of existing regulations and guidance could also have a significant impact on employers. While the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Loren Cook Company, discussed above, may lessen the likelihood of drastic reinterpretations of rules, employers should still be on the lookout for changes in interpretation and implementation that may affect how companies do business.


The first seven years of the current Administration have been very challenging for employers under OSHA and other employment laws. 2016 may be the most challenging as the current Administration wants to project its agenda in the waning days of its authority. The President has said that in his last year he intends to “leave it all on the field” as to his agendas which means that employers must continue to be vigilant, keep informed and respond properly.

Source: Seyfarth, Shaw, LLC




“OSHA – EMT’s At Amazon Fulfillment Center Are Not “Licensed Health Care Professionals”



Jeff Bezo, President and CEO of Amazon, was sent a letter by the U.S. Department of Labor -OSHA on January 6, 2016, warning him to stop using AMCARE, their in-plant medical unit which is staffed with EMTs to provide medical care. EMTs are only supposed to provide first aid, nothing more.

In the letter the OSHA  states “After reviewing relevant facts pertaining to this case, it has been determined the AMCARE is providing medical care beyond first aid at the Robbinsville, New Jersey Amazon Fullfillment Center .” The letter goes on to specify that EMTs are not licensed to practice medical care independently as per the state laws. “AMCARE personnel were providing medical care beyond what is allowed by their licensing and certification without the supervision of a board certified qualified medical professional licensed to practice independently.”

EMTs are only allowed to provide first aid as well as provide referrals to an outside health care providers when necessary.

You can read the OSHA letter to Amazon here: https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Amazon_1074833_HAL.pdf

“OSHA Can Now Cite Facilities It Hasn’t Visited – Administrative Law Judge Rules”


If your business operates in more than one location, you cannot ignore this case or its implications.

Central Transport operates trucking terminals around the country. As a result of OSHA’s investigation of one facility in Massachusetts, the agency fined the company $330,800 for violations relating to powered industrial trucks. That, in and of itself, is not that remarkable. What OSHA did next, however, should cause your head to spin.

In addition to the citations and fines levied at the facility it actually inspected, an OSHA administrative law judge also ordered “enterprise-wide” abatement at the 170 nationwide facilities OSHA had not inspected. The ALJ relied on the “other appropriate relief” clause of section 10(c) of the Act to conclude that the agency has the authority to order such enterprise-wide abatement of hazards existing, “upon information and belief,” at worksites other than the location where the inspection occurred.

This opinion, which you can read in its entirety at link posted below is groundbreaking. Even though the judge downplayed the opinion’s precedential impact, OSHA has very a different take:

“Judge Baumerich’s order is significant and precedent-setting. This is the first decision by an OSHA Administrative Law Judge expressly finding that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission may have the authority under the OSH Act to order abatement measures beyond the specific violations identified in the citations. The department is now authorized to proceed with discovery and to demonstrate, by presenting its evidence at trial, that enterprise-wide abatement is merited on the facts of this case,” said Michael Felsen, the regional solicitor of labor for New England.

“When an employer has hazards occurring at multiple locations, common sense and reasonable worker protection law enforcement both dictate that the employer take corrective action to safeguard the health and well-being of employees at all its worksites,” said Kim Stille, OSHA’s regional administrator for New England.

If your business operates in more than one location, you cannot ignore this case or its implications. What steps can (should?) you take to minimize the risk of enterprise-wide abatement based on a one-site inspection? Think CAT — Communicate, Analyze, and Train.

Communicate and share safety issues among all locations. It appears that conventional wisdom, which stated that OSHA inspections are limited the actual facility being inspected, is out the window. As a result, if one facility is having a safety inspection, you should be sharing that issue across all your facilities, so that if OSHA comes knocking you will limit your exposure company-wide.

Analyze your safety low-hanging fruit. You will find this low-hanging fruit in two places. First and foremost, if you are not using your OSHA 300 logs as a compliance tool, you are missing a great opportunity. By tracking employee injuries, those logs tell you how employees are becoming injured, and, in turn, which safety areas need to be addressed. Secondly, you should analyze national and local trends for the areas most often cited by OSHA.

Train, train, and train some more. Your managers and supervisors are your best defense against an OSHA-related issue. They are your eyes and ears among your employees. If they don’t know what OSHA requires and how those requirements must be executed in your business, then that line of defense is leaving you exposed. It sounds trite, but with workplace safety, the proverbial ounce of prevention is really worth the pound of cure.

Source: This case originally appeared at Meyers Roman’s Ohio OSHA Law Blog & Workforce Magazine : http://ohiooshalaw.com/osha-now-thinks-that-it-can-cite-facilities-it-hasnt-even-visited/
Jon Hyman is a partner in the Labor & Employment practice of Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis. He is a Workforce contributing editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. For more information, contact Hyman at 216-831-0042, ext. 140, or jhyman@meyersroman.com. Follow Hyman on Twitter at @JonHyman. You can also follow him on Google Plus.


“Say Goodbye To LOTO: Bring Productivity Back To Safety”


If deployed correctly, an OSHA exception for Alternative Protective Measures can free your machines from the lockout/tagout productivity killer.

Author(s): Travis Hessman – November 13, 2015

Safety doesn’t have to come at the expense of productivity.”

If one were to boil down the Safety Technology track at EHS Today’s Safety Leadership Conference into one sentence, that would be it.

It was a sentiment that was, of course, welcomed rather warmly by the crowds of EHS professionals in attendance, all of whom have likely been arguing the same point in their plants for years.

But, when Jimi Michalscheck – business development manager at Rockwell Automation – opened with that line in his session on Advanced Lockout/Tagout of all things, he left even that crowd scratching their heads. And for good reason.

In most safety systems (and regulations), there tends to be some wiggle room – space enough for clever engineers to work with the EHS team to maximize safety without interrupting the work process.

“However,” Michalscheck noted, “following OSHA’s lockout/tagout definition, there are certain parameters that you absolutely have to follow. There’s no wiggle room.”

This is what LOTO is for, he explained. No matter what you do, no matter why bypasses operators try to sneak in, the machines are off and everyone is safe.

This, while certainly providing much needed safety for the operators, can add up to some costly downtime.

Michalscheck pointed to a case packer to highlight the point.

These machines, he said, are “notorious for jamming, notorious for interlocks, and notorious for accidents and citations because of the frequency people are in them.”

He estimated that a full LOTO on one of these can take up to 15 minutes to complete and that the machine can jam five times in an hour of operation. That can add up to $23,000 in lost productivity per hour, per machine, he said.

“But what if I told you,” he added, “that we could design a different system that only takes 30 seconds?”

He was referring to an exception tacked on to OSHA’s LOTO requirements (1910.147(a)):

“Exception to paragraph (a)(2)(ii): Minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, which take place during normal production operations, are not covered by this standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the equipment for production, provided that the work is performed using alternative measures which provide effective protection.”

This means, Michalscheck concluded, that if engineers and EHS teams can work together to create standard safety systems and equipment on their machines to handle these kinds of jams and minor service operations that provide the same measure of safety as full lockouts, then they can go without LOTO.

If deployed appropriately, Alternative Protective Measures (APMs) can provide operators the same safety and security as LOTO, but without the costly downtime.

“You don’t have to shackle your productivity for safety,” he said. “As long as you can design something that is as effective as lockout/tagout, you can do it. In fact, engineering safe alternatives is key to establishing advanced lockout/tagout.”

The trick to this, he said, is to think of your equipment not as single, solid parts, but as a collection of individual serviceable components.

If, for example, a machine mostly jams in one particular area or one particular function, there is not necessarily a need to power down and lock out the entire machine to free it.

Rather, crews can design an alternative safety system that effectively protects workers in an isolated area of the machine, which allows them – protected by guards and triggered e-stops, for example – to quickly free the blockage, correct the errors, and restart the machine with minimal downtime.

These alternative measures, he said, can be powerful productivity tools on the plant floor, but they still require quite a bit of diligence and collaboration to design.

“If you want to do anything other than lockout, I recommend that you treat it just like lockout,” he advised. “Just because OSHA doesn’t require you to document, doesn’t mean you don’t have to do it.”

The means making designing the procedures, documenting them, auditing them, training to them, and incorporating them into your policy and holding yourself to the same bar of safety that OSHA regulations demand.

Developed with care, these systems can provide some much needed wiggle room for the regulations, he said. “But what isn’t allowed is an increased risk to employees by using alternative protective measure procedures. In other words, any APM developed must provide the same or greater level of protection as LOTO.”

“APMs aren’t just an advantage to ROI and competitive edge,” he added. “These are really, really big penalties at stake.” And, it’s worth noting, people’s lives and limbs as well.

Sources: Rockwell Automation, EHS Today & New Equipment Digest

“Working At Heights” – “How Do I Tie Off If I’m The First To Climb Above 6′ & There Is No Established Tie Off Point?”


If there’s one thing we know about requirements for fall protection during construction work it’s that, if you are over 6’ above the next highest working surface (or less in certain states), you are legally required to use equipment specially designed to protect you from falling; the second you reach that height, you must be protected. Not doing so, aside from the obvious physical dangers it presents, may also put your company in line for a hefty fine from OSHA.

We also know that a mandatory component of a fall protection system is the anchorage connector. Because, after all, all the lanyards and harnesses in the world aren’t going to help if you don’t have anywhere to connect them.
And at some point along the line, obviously, we need to install our anchorage connector in order to be able to use it.

But wait a second…
We’re seemingly being presented with a kind of chicken or egg type paradox here…and it can leave a foul (sorry…bird humor) taste in our mouths. To work in construction at heights 6’ or above, you must be tied-off to an anchor point or otherwise protected. But to install your anchor point (the first one at least), you must work at heights 6’ or greater without being tied-off. But have no fear, because this problem is actually simple to solve. Let’s go to the standards!


OSHA 1926 Subpart M, (1926.500(a)(1)) tells us that, “The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection, investigation, or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed.”


Simply put, if it is your responsibility to install the very first fall protection anchorage connector on your job, you are not required to be tied-off while doing so.
In other words, if your role is to be the first person up on the roof, OSHA doesn’t expect you to magically install an anchor by lobbing it up on your roof and praying for it to rain nails. They do, however, expect you to immediately tie-off to that anchor once it is installed, and to never perform any other work prior to doing so.


It does not. An anchorage connector is not a structural component of a building, and so installing one is not construction work.
A subtle point to be made here is that, while the installation of an anchorage connector isn’t construction, it is sometimes done simultaneous with an act of construction. For example, some anchorage connectors are required to be cast in place during the initial pouring of concrete. While the installation of these anchors wouldn’t be considered construction work, the pouring of the concrete and erection of the structure absolutely would, and consequently workers would be required to use fall protection if at heights greater than 6’.


This is a great time to bring in alternate forms of fall protection into the discussion, since sometimes there just isn’t a practical way to connect to an anchor. Scaffolding, man lifts, and guardrails are all excellent alternatives to more traditional fall protection systems, and can even mitigate dangers for workers required to be 6′ above the next highest work surface prior to the installation of the first fall protection anchor!
Because, if it’s feasible, why not install your first anchor from the comforts of a man lift, instead of doing so unprotected? No paradox there.

It’s important here to reemphasize that we are only talking about the installation of the first fall protection anchorage connector. It is assumed that, once the first anchor is installed, there will never again be a case where a worker will find themselves 6’ or higher above the ground and not protected in some way.
It may be that the installation of the first anchor doesn’t come until some alternate form of fall protection is already in place, at which point the issue becomes moot. But if an anchor is determined to be the best initial fall protection option, it is permitted to install it without being tied-off, provided no other construction work is being done.


“Worker Fainting At The Sight Of His Own Blood Deemed A “Work Related” Recordable Incident By OSHA”



We all know people who get light-headed at the sight of blood. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued an interpretation letter, advising that an incident in which a worker fainted at the sight of his own blood was “work-related”.

The worker in question had scratched his finger on a vinyl saw clamp at work. The injury was minor, and a Band-Aid was the only first aid treatment sought. However, while a co-worker applied the Band-Aid, the worker fainted at the sight of his own blood. He regained consciousness and no further treatment was needed.

The worker’s employer asked OSHA to clarify whether the event was work-related so that the employer was required to “record” the event on an OSHA form. The law required the employer to report a work-related injury or illness if it results in unconsciousness.

Because the employee fainted, OHSA determined that the fainting spell was work-related.

The case is a reminder that some injuries and accidents that appear not to be work-related, may be reportable. For instance, in Ontario, employers are required to report “critical injuries” to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, including “an injury of a serious nature that . . . produces unconsciousness”.

OHSA’s interpretation letter may be read here: 


Source: Lexology


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,146 other followers

%d bloggers like this: